On floor area ratios, excessive slope and a proposed committee
At the much anticipated Dec. 2 City Council session, individuals who
by chance happened to hear about the latest ordinance battle -- none
had been officially informed by the City Council -- came forward
because their homes would be adversely affected by the newest
proposed floor area ratio restrictions. There was no indication that
this proposed prohibition had been sufficiently disseminated to
homeowners throughout the Glendale area who would be affected by
these proposed changes.
The individuals who spoke against it expressed grave concerns that
as their family grew, under the proposed new FAR restriction, they
would be unable to add a room to the existing house to accommodate
that growth. They arrived with a petition signed by several local
residents who shared the same concerns. The restriction covers not
just hillside homes but also those on flat land, where new house size
has hardly been a controversial issue. Councilman Gus Gomez, upon
hearing that testimony, indicated he never considered the fact that
those proposed changes would have such adverse repercussions. It is
highly likely that if these proposed changes to the FAR had been
widely disseminated to those affected -- including homeowners on flat
lots -- as they should have been, a large mob would be on hand to
vehemently protest.
Another highly controversial prohibition that has been floated in
the past was recently shot down by the Planning Commission. However,
it is still hastily being pushed through the halls of [City Hall] by
groups like the Chevy Chase Estates Assn. It is a prohibition on
building on lots with average slope exceeding an arbitrary figure,
typically 50-55%. We find this a particularly peculiar suggestion
when fully two-thirds of all homes on the Glendale hillsides sit on
slopes that exceed this threshold, among them many of Glendale’s
grandest, most exquisite homes.
Certainly there have been some aesthetically displeasing or
incompatible homes built on the hillsides that were slipped through
prior to the passing of the 1993 Hillside Ordinance. Yet it is a
mistake to overreact and now prohibit the few remaining vacant lot
owners from deriving any economic use from their lot; it is an unfair
transfer of culpability. Moreover, it is irrational to regard every
hillside lot owner as a greedy developer anxious to get the most bang
for the buck without regard to design and compatibility issues, as
this certainly is not true.
Finally, as Mr. Zavos indicated at the City Council meeting of
Sept. 30 and repeatedly thereafter, under the Supreme Court’s Lucas
case, a complete prohibition without just compensation to the owner
would be deemed unconstitutional and considered a taking.
What we are ultimately trying to point out is that these proposals
have not been adequately vetted to a broad segment of the community,
and their implications have not been carefully considered. Given the
drastic nature of some of the proposed changes, we would urge the
city to take a more calculated, deliberate approach.
We suggest the council create a committee composed of two
representatives from the Homeowners Coordinating Council (one from a
hillside group and another from a flatlands group); two
representatives taken from the owners of vacant and currently legally
buildable hillside lots who have expressed concern over an outright
prohibition; two architects whose specialty is hillside development;
one landscape architect who deals with hillside development; a member
of the City Council; two members of the planning staff; and one
attorney versed in land-use law.
This committee would be charged with formulating amendments to the
Hillside Ordinance, which would ensure that houses built on hillside
lots are not oppressive and aesthetically displeasing yet meanwhile
protect the property rights of landowners. Such a committee would
ensure the diverse input of all groups affected, would subject any
proposal to the diverse interests represented -- thus ferreting out
any hidden implications in a given proposal -- and would have the
credibility of taking into consideration more than the narrow views
of a particular homeowners’ association. Finally, any such serious
changes to the city code should not be passed through without
extensive deliberation and analysis.
We do not wish to despoil our hillside. Any open-minded individual
can drive through our hills, see houses that detract and houses that
add to a neighborhood, and conclude that what adds or detracts from a
neighborhood is not determined by steepness of slope or home size,
but rather by quality of design.
HARRY ZAVOS
SHANT MINAS
Glendale